Bill Siksay

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a report card issued by Simon Fraser University gave B.C. a failing grade, the worst in Canada, when it came to language training for immigrants. Immigrants to B.C. end up with only mediocre language skills, blocking them from good jobs and community participation.

The B.C. government takes a whopping 47% of federal money earmarked for settlement services and diverts it to general revenue. There is no accountability for this spending and no national standard.

What steps will the minister take to ensure accountability for federal dollars and national standards for immigrant services?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for his very moving and eloquent speech. I also wish to express my appreciation for his support of the gay and lesbian community over many years, and also his outstanding work in terms of equality in general during his many years here in Parliament.

I want to ask the member a question about an issue that has come up. A number of members in the debate have suggested that Canada might be one of the few countries moving toward recognizing civil marriage for gay and lesbian people and that not many other countries have done that yet, and that somehow this represents a problem for Canada. They have suggested that this should be a reason that we hold back on this issue.

I wonder, given his comments about Canada leading the world in inclusiveness, if he might tell me if he thinks that leading the way on this particular issue is a problem or an opportunity for leadership?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put some questions to the member for London—Fanshawe. The member has taken great pains to talk about the procreative imperative of marriage; in his opinion, it is the sole criteria for which marriage should be judged. It seems to me that when we are considering civil marriage this really has never been the operative aspect of civil marriage in this country.

I would like to know what the member would say to a heterosexual couple who has no intention of having children as part of their marriage. Does that make their marriage less than a “true marriage”, in the language that he used? What about a couple that is beyond the age for child rearing or beyond the biological capacity of having children? Is that marriage not a true marriage? Should that couple be prevented from marrying? It seems to me that if we take his argument seriously, we would have to answer that those people would not and should not be allowed to marry. I have some real difficulty with that discussion.

I am also concerned about families that adopt children. Is that not a true family? Is the relationship of those parents not a true marriage in that sense? It seems to me that he raises more questions than he solves by stressing the procreative aspect.

I would also like to ask him if he could point to one example, even in the Catholic church, where I believe he is a member, where a priest has been forced to marry someone who had been previously divorced. It is the church's policy not to marry those folks. Has there been any instance where religious freedom was violated to force a priest to marry someone who had been divorced or to marry a couple who were not both Roman Catholic, let us say? Has the freedom of the Catholic church to make a decision based on that been violated? By extension, why would he think that this is down the road?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I think a few minutes ago the member was recounting the genesis of this debate. She mentioned that she thought Canadians had not asked for this question to be on the agenda.

What does that make of the gay and lesbian couples across Canada who wanted to be included in the institution of marriage, who believed in the institution of marriage and who sought out the right to be married in Canada? Does that make them not Canadian? Does that make them some other form, a lower class of Canadian citizenship?

Surely the people who are moving this debate along are the couples who sought to be included in this venerable institution and who wanted to make that commitment to each other. By her statement, it seems that she does not seem to include them as Canadian citizens. Could she comment on that?

[Chinese Canadian Recognition and Redress Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the fact that the member has raised this important issue in Bill C-333.

I believe it follows in the tradition of a former colleague of ours, Margaret Mitchell, from Vancouver East, who raised this issue a number of years ago in the House. I must say it is sad that we are still debating it all these years later. We need to take responsibility for this terrible and racist chapter of our history. I strongly support the idea of redress on the issue of the head tax and the Chinese immigration act.

I have questions for the member about her bill. Why has the member chosen to limit the consultation, limiting it only to one organization representing the Chinese Canadian community when in fact there are a number of fine organizations that represent members of the Chinese Canadian community? Why is there a limitation on the consultation process in the bill?

Could the member also tell us why she has placed a limitation on the kind of compensation that might be negotiated as a result of the negotiations around Bill C-333? Why, for instance, has she not made it possible for individuals who were directly affected by these terrible acts to be compensated?

[Definition of Marriage Act, February 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the private member's bill of the member for Fundy Royal. I do not think it will come as any surprise to anyone in the House that I am not supportive of the bill.

I appreciate the concerns of the member though and his disappointment that his bill will not come to a vote. While I do not necessarily support his argument around that, I understand the frustration of a member of the House who introduces private member's legislation that he or she feels strongly about and hopes for the day when it will receive a debate in the House.

I did that myself. I have a bill on the order paper on the question of marriage. It is probably exactly opposite to the intent of the private member's bill of the member for Fundy Royal. However, my bill will not come to a debate now. Events have overtaken it. Court decisions have overtaken it. I appreciate that my bill is now somewhat redundant given the fact we are debating Bill C-38 in the House. However, it was important for me to introduce the bill. When I did it, it was done so it would put pressure on the government to stop its delaying and get on with the important business of getting the issue before Parliament and before the country.

That is one of the reasons why we introduce a private member's bills. I hope I helped move that along with my bill. I regret it will not have its day here in the House, but I am happy that Bill C-38 and the issue is firmly on the parliamentary agenda now.

I have real trouble with the bill on a personal level. It seeks to limit my participation in Canadian society and the participation of other gay and lesbian people in Canadian society. It says that there is a key institution of our society, a key institution which we in Parliament have responsibility for which is out of our reach and something in which we are limited in our participation. I cannot accept that.

Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have now been legally married in Canada. That is thousands of Canadians. Thousands more Canadians have supported them in taking that step. Lots of clergy people as well have supported them in doing that. Many of those couples were married in churches and perhaps synagogues as well. It is something that has changed in our society, but the bill would seek to limit that positive change for many Canadians.

I do not think the fact that gay and lesbian couples can now be married in seven provinces and one territory has really changed our society all that much. I do not believe it has changed our understanding of marriage. I do not believe it has limited the ability, or commitments, or obligations, or understanding of marriage or traditions of marriage that heterosexual couples celebrate regularly in our society. Life is going on. I do not think society has collapsed because we now have hundreds of married gay and lesbian couples in Canada.

The bill claims to be about the definition of marriage, and we often talk lately about the definition of marriage. I do not think that is really what we are talking about. We are talking about something much more limited than that. We are talking about eligibility for marriage. If we were talking about the definition of marriage, we would be talking about things like love, commitment, faithfulness, responsibility, security and the care for children. All those kinds of things I think define marriage, not necessarily the gender of the couple who presents itself to be married.

We miss the point in a very particular and important way if we limit ourselves to considering the gender of the couple and not considering these other very important qualities about marriage. Love is something that is in short supply in our world. Commitment is something that is often challenged in our world. Faithfulness is sometimes very undervalued in our world. People need to be encouraged to take responsibility for their lives and for their relationships in our world.

All of us crave security and the creative space that builds for us and our children. In gay and lesbian and heterosexual relationships, we all know that having children in a secure setting does many wonderful things for them. Those are the kinds of things, if we were truly talking about defining marriage, we would be debating. What we are talking about is something much more limited.

I want to read a quote from the Right Reverend Peter Short, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, who wrote an article called “Let No One Be Turned Away”. In that article Reverend Short describes marriage. He states:

Marriage lays a foundation, constructs a framework, and builds a house for love. Since constant perfect love is impossible (that's another story) marriage provides a structure, a habit of being together, a promise of faithfulness to carry us through those times when we know we must act with love but do not feel like loving. Eventually the house becomes a home, the wedding becomes a marriage, and the relationship becomes a habit of the heart.

Marriage functions the way any good habit or discipline functions. It helps us hang on through short-term ambiguity on the way to long-term freedom. The ambiguity is in the conflict between feeling and commitment. The freedom is in knowing there's a place to stand beneath the ambiguity--common ground. Common ground is not the same as having things in common, but you find that out in time.

It is important to remember that we are talking about this kind of commitment in this discussion. I do not think there is anything in the statement by Reverend Short that is not accessible to gay and lesbian couples. This is exactly what we hope for in our relationships and in our marriages. We need to remember that there is nothing in being gay or lesbian which limits our participation in that kind of love, relationship and marriage.

I am concerned when I hear discussion, some of which we have had this afternoon, that seems legalistic and very removed from the real lives of Canadians. It is hard for me as a gay man to listen to something which so affects on such an intimate level our lives and loves being debated in an abstract and legalistic kind of way. I remind people that when we are talking about this issue, we are talking about real people and real commitments.

I do not believe marriage between gay and lesbian people will change the lives of heterosexual couples in any way. I do not think it changes the commitments they make. It does not change the traditions they celebrate when they are being married.

I remember there was a demonstration outside our office about marriage several years ago. My predecessor, Svend Robinson, went out to speak to the people who were opposed the change in the definition of marriage. He asked rhetorically if any of them believed that his marrying his partner would change the other people's relationships with their husbands or wives. He further asked people to put up their hands if they thought his marriage to his partner, if he chose to do that, would change the other people's marriages. Not one of the people, who were there to oppose changing the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian people, put up their hand. That is a significant indication.

I do not believe this change challenges religious freedom in Canada. If I thought that for one second, I would be opposed to doing it. I am an active member of the United Church of Canada. I will not support anything that I believe tilts us in the direction of limiting religious freedom in Canada. I do not believe raising this issue does that. I do not believe it is a slippery slope to take us toward that. I just do not think it is in the cards.

There is another thing I want to challenge. We hear that this debate, discussion and changes are being forced on us by decisions of the court and that somehow this is undemocratic. I do not think that is the case at all. This change is before us now because couples want to be married and want to uphold the traditions of marriage. They strongly support the institution and champion it. They went before the courts to say that they wanted to be married, that they wanted to uphold that tradition. That is why this issue is before us, not because of some legal process or some sort of judicial activism. It is because gay and lesbian couples decided to challenge the law and seek our full equality in society.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a crucial point around the question of accountability in our health care spending. I agree with her that this is a glaring omission from the legislation, particularly when we look at the kind of feedback that she quoted from the Canadian Health Coalition, which generally gives the government a “D” when it comes to accountability in health care spending in its past efforts. It does not give us much confidence for the future.

I also agree with her when she raises the serious concerns about for profit health care, especially in our home province of British Columbia. It always boggles my mind when we talk about for profit health care. Just the very nature of for profit health care introduces a major new expense into the system that we do not currently have.

Profit is a huge expense to the health care system, to any system. Taking profit out of the system, constitutes a major and significant new expenditure. I have real problems with that.

Today, we heard the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan ask the minister questions in question period around credit card medicine. I was not too impressed with his response. The minister stood up and said that he would defend the Canada Health Act. However, he was not very specific. We have not seen much action on that front.

I am not one to heckle much in the House. My colleague from Winnipeg heard that I came to that point today when the minister was responding. I asked rhetorically for the minister to show us his teeth behind his promise to enforce the Canada Health Act.

What does she think about the minister's response to her questions today about credit card medicine in Canada?

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, over 2,000 Vietnamese boat people remain in the Philippines. These refugees from the war in Vietnam were never resettled and never repatriated and are without status in the Philippines. They receive no support from the UN.

Australia, the U.K., Norway and the U.S. are working to close the book on this chapter of world history by resettling some of these stateless refugees. The Canadian Vietnamese community is ready now to do its part to help.

My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Why has Canada refused to assist with this admirable humanitarian project?

[Post-Secondary Education, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights came into force and was signed by Canada in 1976. One of its provisions is that higher education shall be made equally accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education. The Simon Fraser Student Society in my riding is calling on the United Nations to investigate Canada's non-compliance with this agreement.

The federal Liberals cut over $3 billion to the provinces for post-secondary education. The B.C. Liberals have failed to maintain the NDP's freeze on tuition fees, forcing tuition up by over 70% at universities, and over 150% at colleges.

The time for action is long past. Access to post-secondary education in Canada is threatened. Student debt is way too high. Families are frustrated in the hope to ensure the best education for their children. Post-secondary institutions must be fully funded. The government must act now.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, anyone who has had the experience of getting to know a gay or lesbian couple or gay or lesbian family would know the obvious answer to that question.

The values that are expressed in our relationships are no different than the values expressed in the relationships of heterosexual couples. The values that our children learn in our families are no different than the values that the children learn in the families headed by heterosexual couples. Anyone who has had any experience of that will understand that is true.

The question in some ways is unfortunate because it denies the reality of the commitments that we make to each other, of the love that we express, and of the care we have for our children and their upbringing.

I was raised in a family with heterosexual parents and I learned values from my parents and from their parents, my grandparents. Those are the values that I take forward into my life as an adult. Those are the values that I take into my relationship with my partner. I think it is very consistent. The couples who are bringing forward the question of marriage are people who strongly share the values of marriage as they have been raised with it in this society.

This is not a challenge to the meaning of marriage, to the values of marriage, to the obligations of marriage, or to the responsibilities of marriage. In this society where, in many ways, marriage is under threat from marriage breakdown and that kind of thing and not because it is gay and lesbian people whose marriages are breaking down. These are people who are willing to champion that institution and say that it is an institution that still has value, promise and possibility. They are the ones who are taking it into the future and who are strengthening marriage as we speak today.